So Who Do You Think We Are? Morons?

Mr. Obama grew especially animated in rebuffing suggestions by some Republican presidential candidates, governors and lawmakers that the United States should block entry of Syrian refugees to prevent terrorists from slipping into the country.

“The people who are fleeing Syria are the most harmed by terrorism; they are the most vulnerable as a consequence of civil war and strife,” Mr. Obama said. He added: “We do not close our hearts to these victims of such violence and somehow start equating the issue of refugees with the issue of terrorism.”

Without naming him, Mr. Obama singled out a comment by former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, one of the Republicans seeking to succeed him, for suggesting the United States focus special attention on Christian refugees. “That’s shameful,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s not American. It’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”

At a time when they are facing specific threats just for being Christians -- and at such a scale that Catholic charities warn that Christianity itself will be wiped out of the Middle East within a decade -- one might think that a religious test would at least not be applied against them. Maybe it even makes some sense to favor Christians, given that they are the ones under threat of extinction, and given that they would fit in pretty well in an America that remains ~75% Christian (and which is culturally informed by Christian values even among those who are not themselves Christians). It would make sense for them, and it would make sense for us.

Skip to 2:15 to watch Rhodes, responding to the news that one of the Paris bombers washed up onshore in Greece just six weeks ago, claim that it’s full speed ahead on the U.S. accepting 10,000 Syrian refugees of its own. The Democratic nominee-in-waiting said on Saturday night that she wants 65,000(!) refugees here, albeit “only if we have as careful a screening and vetting process as we can imagine.” That’s a mighty bold move by Democrats given that a majority of Americans already opposed admitting refugees back in September, with that number sure to rise now in the wake of the attack. And it goes without saying that if someone makes it over here via Obama’s refugee policy and promptly blows themselves up in Times Square, it’ll be night-night for Democrats in next year’s election. That’s a gigantic risk for O and Hillary to take. So why are they doing it?

It's not the President's only risky move on this score lately. What's less clear is why Clinton is doubling down on it. Given the polling you'd expect her to make a much vaguer statement of support for the President for the duration of the primary, and then come out hard against him on this in the general. Instead, she really has to hope that there are no Islamic terrorist attacks in the United States this coming year -- especially any that can be tracked to refugees, but really any serious such attacks at all.

11 comments:

raven
said...

It should be pretty clear by now to anyone with two brain cells to rub together, the Democrat Party is going "Full Venezuela" . They are deliberately destroying the Republic, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

They aren't a political party though. The Left an alliance, thus their organization and chain of command isn't necessarily based on politics or the Democrats. The Democrats tend to hold most of the resource redistribution bags, but they are only one faction in the Left, which has 1000 + 1 factions in it.

Just as Islam is not merely a religion, the Democrats since 1860, haven't been merely a political party. They will try again, what they failed to get in CW1.

Right now I'm getting "Steve Jobs was the son of a Syrian immigrant" memes. Well, OK, maybe he was -- I'll accept that claim arguendo. But there was not at that time a flourishing terrorist semi-nation promising to use refugees as a vector for infiltration. It's a little bit different situation, n'est-ce pas (as they say in Paris, not to put too fine a point on it)?

I thought it was the Leftist position that fleeing Jews did cause the moral equivalent of the Holocaust, through their merciless persecution of the Palestinians whose land they overran. Anyone who believes that narrative ought to take seriously the idea of even ordinary decent refugees being dangerous in large enough scale.

Also, I think you're the one who introduced the term "Nazis." Also, "Muslims." Instead of assuming you know what we're talking about, why not read the conversation?

The blue eyed women in those Islamic harems in the "Golden Age" of Islam were slaves taken in raids, their families and towns were burned down. Spain was the distribution point of Islamic sexual slavery to Africa and Italy.

Some of us have not forgotten who the enemies of humanity are, and refugees aren't going to change that any time this century.